Doctors ‘lack training in genetics to cope with medical revolution’
Mark Henderson, Science Editor,
San Diego Doctors must be taught more about genetics to prepare them for a revolution in personalised medicine, says one of America’s senior scientists, who is a pioneer of the Human Genome Project.
Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health, who led the international team that first sequenced the human genetic code, said that far too many doctors in Britain and America lacked the training they will need to use DNA-based medicine.
The falling costs of reading DNA, and growing understanding of the links between genetic variation and common disorders, were poised to have a huge impact on the way GPs and hospital doctors treated patients, he said.
Individuals’ genetic profiles would soon be used to prescribe drugs that were most likely to be safe and effective. Few doctors, however, understood enough about the way genetics contributed to drug responses and common diseases to exploit such advances, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in San Diego.
Many doctors were also resistant to reforming medical school syllabuses to include more genetics. Some claimed genetics was unimportant to their clinical practice, despite its contribution to disorders such as heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. “Changing medical education is one of the most challenging aspects of what needs to happen,” Dr Collins said. “We are working against great resistance, I am afraid. There are many practising docs out there who will tell you that genetics is irrelevant. They might have just seen two patients with diabetes, one with heart disease, another with Alzheimer’s, but genetics, they would say, is irrelevant to their practice. I was on the faculty of the University of Michigan for ten years, trying to get a little more genetics into the curriculum. You can’t believe the blood that got spilt over just one hour — it was easier to sequence the human genome than to change one hour of medical curriculum.”
The costs of reading DNA have fallen so sharply that many scientists predict it will be possible to sequence any individual’s entire genetic code for less than £1,000 within a year or two. Research has also revealed hundreds of genetic variations that affect an individual’s risk of disease or response to medicines. Companies such as 23andMe and Pathway Genomics are selling genome scans directly to consumers for between £300 and £600.
A House of Lords report said last year that medical education should be revised to take account of these developments, and The Times revealed that the National Genetics Education and Development Centre has begun a review of the medical curriculum.
Dr Collins predicted that patient demand would accelerate change.
“They will come in waving sheets of paper, saying, ‘I have just had my DNA analysed by 23andMe and it says I am at risk for diabetes, and will you interpret that?’. Docs don’t like to be embarrassed, so I suspect that will drive some degree of urgency.
“The good news is that genetics is pretty straightforward. You need to know a bit of the principles, and a little statistical risk prediction information, and you can do this.”
Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health, who led the international team that first sequenced the human genetic code, said that far too many doctors in Britain and America lacked the training they will need to use DNA-based medicine.
The falling costs of reading DNA, and growing understanding of the links between genetic variation and common disorders, were poised to have a huge impact on the way GPs and hospital doctors treated patients, he said.
Individuals’ genetic profiles would soon be used to prescribe drugs that were most likely to be safe and effective. Few doctors, however, understood enough about the way genetics contributed to drug responses and common diseases to exploit such advances, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in San Diego.
Many doctors were also resistant to reforming medical school syllabuses to include more genetics. Some claimed genetics was unimportant to their clinical practice, despite its contribution to disorders such as heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. “Changing medical education is one of the most challenging aspects of what needs to happen,” Dr Collins said. “We are working against great resistance, I am afraid. There are many practising docs out there who will tell you that genetics is irrelevant. They might have just seen two patients with diabetes, one with heart disease, another with Alzheimer’s, but genetics, they would say, is irrelevant to their practice. I was on the faculty of the University of Michigan for ten years, trying to get a little more genetics into the curriculum. You can’t believe the blood that got spilt over just one hour — it was easier to sequence the human genome than to change one hour of medical curriculum.”
The costs of reading DNA have fallen so sharply that many scientists predict it will be possible to sequence any individual’s entire genetic code for less than £1,000 within a year or two. Research has also revealed hundreds of genetic variations that affect an individual’s risk of disease or response to medicines. Companies such as 23andMe and Pathway Genomics are selling genome scans directly to consumers for between £300 and £600.
A House of Lords report said last year that medical education should be revised to take account of these developments, and The Times revealed that the National Genetics Education and Development Centre has begun a review of the medical curriculum.
Dr Collins predicted that patient demand would accelerate change.
“They will come in waving sheets of paper, saying, ‘I have just had my DNA analysed by 23andMe and it says I am at risk for diabetes, and will you interpret that?’. Docs don’t like to be embarrassed, so I suspect that will drive some degree of urgency.
“The good news is that genetics is pretty straightforward. You need to know a bit of the principles, and a little statistical risk prediction information, and you can do this.”
No comments:
Post a Comment